[clue-talk] The stimulus bill

[Nate Duehr]

So, since you're an anti-tax advocate, I have to assume you don't use 
any resources that tax dollars have paid for? You don't drive on roads, 
use the electric grid, use the Internet or expect the fire department to 
show up when your house burns? I'll assume you don't want soldiers 
defending your freedoms, police protecting you against theft or a public 
defender to help you when you're unfairly charged with a crime?

Actions speak louder than words. If you really don't think the 
government should tax you, then you should stop using all that pork, huh?
----


Nice try to change the topic from a road to "Breck" not having traffic jams,
which is not a RIGHT for anyone -- to inalienable rights under our country's
legal system, as if those can be equally compared.  That's a pretty big
jump.  Nice label too... "anti-tax", which I'm not.  I'm "anti STUPID tax",
please pay attention.

To get more specific to your points :

1. There are places you can go where roads weren't paid for by government
dollars. 
2. The electric grid is paid for by private corporations with
government-REGULATED monopoly status, something we all agree on so there's
not four power lines to my house for "competition".
3. There are plenty of rural places where the firefighters are volunteers
only, and the equipment is just (barely) paid for by the local public via
taxes.
4. The defense of the country (a standing military) is something that's a
Constitutionally protected right for all Citizens, just like having a
defense attorney in CRIMINAL cases.  (No public defenders for CIVIL cases,
of course.)
5. There are areas where there's barely any police presence, and certainly
not city police forces.  Volunteers also help in these areas.
6. I already pay for all of the above and am not fighting those things.
You're advocating something you want done to a road that may or may not need
it, and claiming that you're "happy" that the pork-a-palooza bill from
Washington is here to save you from yourself.  e.g. You never worked to
convince the local lawmakers to push for higher taxes to keep the road up to
your contrived traffic standards, and then think it's better to distribute
money from Washington to do it, which naturally has to cost more in the end,
since it's not as efficient as a local tax.

As far as my personal use of the legal system:

1. The chances of being "unfairly" charged with a crime are pretty small.  
2. I personally WOULD find the risk of paying a private attorney, even if it
ran me into considerable debt, to be worth not being incarcerated for
something I did not do.
3. Said attorney would also be able to counter-sue for punitive damages on a
number of charges of both criminal and civil nature, in this hypothetical,
rare case.
4. There is insurance for "extra risk" endeavors or "unpopular" ones where a
jury of your peers might not understand your actions, or where there is no
jury of your peers available, such as Administrative Law before an
Administrative Law Judge.  The example from my own life would be Legal
Insurance group rates from the Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association,
which anyone who's a member can avail themselves of, and many pilot's do.  

And taxes:

I'm a conservative who continually votes for terribly expensive and badly
run public transportation systems (never have I voted against FasTracks or
RTD bills, yet).

So you can't just label someone "anti-tax" and assume they're stupid just
because they are challenging your belief that this giant non-stimulating,
pork-a-licious bill is any good.

Again, I say:  Want better roads to the mountains, buy some... or get public
opinion swayed via hard work to have us all pay for it.  Don't cheer it
happening because it was on someone's "maybe we'll do this later when we can
afford it" list, and that list is going to be fulfilled by this crappy
Trillion dollar debt/inflation generating bill from people who are more
interested in their Washington D.C. political party affiliations than in
doing what's right for Colorado residents.  

If we had the money and the gumption/public sentiment to do it, I contend we
would have already widened I-70.  We don't, and forcing us to pay for it for
decades as national debt, isn't smart.  Cheering more national government
spending (which also leads to more national government control over our road
that we use) is even dumber than talking about it here locally first.  That
discussion was already ongoing and derailed by budget realities.  Please
excuse me if I'm not jumping for joy that the national government can "fix"
it by printing money.  We all know that leads to inflation, which hurts
everyone a lot more than waiting for an hour in traffic to go skiing, or
learning to carpool up the mountain.  

Stupid is stupid.  Trying to label me, convince me that government spending
for Citizen's RIGHTS should mean that I should cheer for an unnecessary road
project, or otherwise continuing to change the topic away from the question,
won't work with me... 

Reminder:  The question was... why didn't you do something about I-70 BEFORE
the Pork-the-other-white-meat "free" money showed up?  I contend the answer
lies in the word "free", which it's not.

Nate